Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sealand Rebel Government


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   redirect to Sealand . Tone 11:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sealand Rebel Government

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

How many articles, exactly, do we need in order to cover Sealand? It's off the coast of the UK and the majority of Brits have never heard of it, still less of Paddy Roy Bates, his son and now his "rebel government". There is only one subject here. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Hobby "nation's" rebel government fails notability. Edison (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Claims to be government of the Principality I think passes notability. Certainly there encyclopedic content and the page is properly sourced. I see no valid reason to delete the page. Outback the koala (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well... while I am very sympathetic to the entity itself and recognize that the delete-!votes are at least partially based on some sort of hostility, I do also regard this "rebel government of the rebel government" as non-notable. What exists here can easily be included in the main article. The question here is not whether the whole deal is notable per se, but whether or not it is notable to warrant a separate article. Delete Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it can easily be included in the main article, then why say delete?- merge would be likely what you're looking for. However, It seem notable enough for it's own article I think, especially because it, at least in part, trys to de-legitimizes the real Sealand government from what little legitimacy it already has. Outback the koala (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I say delete, because the information is already there. That one additional sentence can be typed in 20 seconds. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- seems notable on the claim, which has been covered in durably-archived media, and the article is sourced. While the standard nation-state POV has no room for these sorts of claims, I don't think Wikipedia should just cover what is verifiable and leave the debate for the political sphere.  N2e (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't think or you do? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * redirect to Sealand; no independent notability. Mukadderat (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge With Sealand. No reason for a standalone article. Warrah (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * merge There is no justification for a separate article,~
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.